Should We Change Doctrine Or Practices To Please Critics?

[blueadept]

When I consider they are willing to allow a wedge to be between them, their children and grandchildren because of a 5 minute sacred ceremony I could argue that they are holding onto a silly grudge.

Like I said - my parents had a difficult time, but I explained to them the reasons we feel the Temple ordinances are done privately for those who have recommends. We had good LDS friends who could have attended but chose to wait outside the Temple with my parents and talk about what was happeneing. We immediately came outside for group pictures with the whole crew.

Kudos in making the best family-bonding solution that's possible for this. I've learned over the years that your answer is the exception and definitely not the rule that LDS couples tend to make.

[Cobalt-70]

Perhaps a real-world situation would be easier to discuss...

Since the origination of the Temple ceremonies in the 1800's, there were aspects to the ceremony that some people didn't like. Let's call these people "critics", as they were dissatisfied with the ceremony, and critical of it. Some might have chosen to leave the Church, others stayed and just avoided the Temple, while others continued going to the Temple and either learned to feel better about the ceremony or just lived with their discomfort.

Then, in the late 1980's, the Church distributed a questionnaire that asked Church members about all aspects of their lives and their feelings about the Church, including the Temple. Members were free to discuss any discomfort or unease they had about the Temple. (A copy of the survey is available online. Skillful googling will lead to it if you're interested).

Then, a few years later, the Temple endowment ceremony was changed, with many parts that people had found especially disturbing changed or removed.

What role did the feedback from the survey have with these changes to the Temple? I don't know. It's possible they had a great deal of influence, it's possible the changes were communicted by God directly to President Benson having nothing to do with the survey.

But to the degree that the survey did influence the changes to the Temple ceremony, we can see a way in which the Church has changed something very core, basic and important (the endowment ceremony) in response to critics.

Who is to say whether this can happen again in the future, and which policies or practices may be affected? And who is to say how the critics will best be heard by Church leaders in a post-internet world?

If we were having this conversation in 1987 and someone suggested the Church might survey the members and then subsequently change material elements of the endowment ceremony, I suspect they would be accused of delusion bordering on insanity. Yet changes were made (and again about 10 years later), and life goes on.

If it happened in 1990 the way it happened in the 1920s, it wasn't just some revelation that came to the President out of the blue. First the church formed a committee, and the committee did an investigation and came up with recommendations to change the temple ceremony, which were then voted upon by the presiding quorums.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Jeff K.]

I don't see a problem with using water instead of wine, but I do agree that the symbolism and authenticity is perhaps greater with wine than with water. The LDS Church once thought that too, which is why during their weekly temple meetings, the First Presidency and Twelve used fermented wine in their sacrament ceremonies even into the early 20th century. They were apparently the last holdouts.

Authenticity is a relative question of perception. Whether prophets and apostles did use fermented wine or not (I have no specific documentation on it) is also irrelevant to what we do today. Christ tried to tell us that the perceived authenticity of sacrifices should not replace their meaning. The authenticity we see today is just as real as that of the first sacrament meeting with Christ and the apostles, same authority. The authenticity is not in the actions of the rite or what kind of bread and liquid it being used, but in touching the spiritual nature of what one is doing. The rite is merely a symbol, the individuals are the ones that call upon the power of heaven to achieve what is being symbolized.

[Duncan]

it's my understanding that the temple has changed various policies over the years, Par Example. The Temple that I attend says you can't change into driving clothes at the Temple.One week you were allowed and it wasn't a problem but this week it's "offensive to God" from what the President has told some members. So you have to change elsewhere, so my solution was to change outside the Temple and if anyone has a problem then that is their problem!

[Deborah]

So can someone please explain to me how people without temple recommends are supposed to attend a sealing when you can only go in that part of the temple with a recommend? I certainly don't see that changing.

[Calm]

As far as water vs. grape juice vs. wine - Christ can always turn the water into wine if He chooses. He's done it before.

Beautiful.

[blueadept]

So can someone please explain to me how people without temple recommends are supposed to attend a sealing when you can only go in that part of the temple with a recommend? I certainly don't see that changing.

I don't see how it can happen either. It will continue to be a wedge between temple-worthy couples and their non-member family members (especially parents). It's a practice that affects families with no possible solution to make it better.

[Calm]

I don't see how it can happen either. It will continue to be a wedge between temple-worthy couples and their non-member family members (especially parents). It's a practice that affects families with no possible solution to make it better.

It is unfortunate, but the scriptures seem to teach that bringing pain to one's family is no excuse for not following the commandments. We just need to make sure that it is an actual commandment we are following to the best of our ability and not just a tradition.

[Libs]

I'm sure non-member families (especially mothers and fathers of bride or groom) could somehow be included in the sealings, if only by exception on those special occasions.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Libs

[cinepro]

So can someone please explain to me how people without temple recommends are supposed to attend a sealing when you can only go in that part of the temple with a recommend? I certainly don't see that changing.

Here's how it would be done:

President Monson: "Starting today, people without recommends can go into the sealing room to view a sealing."

And suddenly, it would be okay.

There should probably be a short class or instruction of some sort for the non-members to help them know what is expected of them, and what they should expect. But from what I've seen at baptismal and sacrament services, it's possible for non-members to respectfully observe our sacred ordinances without desecrating them.

Edited February 7, 2012 by cinepro

[Deborah]

Here's how it would be done:

President Monson: "Starting today, people without recommends can go into the sealing room to view a sealing."

And do you blindfold them as they walk into the sealing room past people in full temple clothing.

[KevinG]

But they are not saying, "Change because I want to be accommodated." They are saying, "Change because you are wrong, and I can't be a part of the (alleged) current insanity."

Exactly - why not establish their own branch and restore authority if they believe the current one is indeed "insanity"?

[Jeff K.]

It is simple, if the Lord directs it, something that Cinepro left out. I don't see the Lord doing that given the importance He places on the ceremony and the level of mockery that would arise from critics who will never ever be happy with the existence of the church.

Aesop

A man and his son were once going with their donkey to market. As they were walking along by his side a countryman passed them and said, "You fools, what is a donkey for but to ride upon?" So the man put the boy on the donkey, and they went on their way.

But soon they passed a group of men, one of whom said, "See that lazy youngster, he lets his father walk while he rides."

So the man ordered his boy to get off, and got on himself. But they hadn't gone far when they passed two women, one of whom said to the other, "Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son trudge along."

Well, the man didn't know what to do, but at last he took his boy up before him on the donkey. By this time they had come to the town, and the passersby began to jeer and point at them. The man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at.

The men said, "Aren't you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor donkey of yours -- you and your hulking son?"

The man and boy got off and tried to think what to do. They thought and they thought, until at last they cut down a pole, tied the donkey's feet to it, and raised the pole and the donkey to their shoulders. They went along amid the laughter of all who met them until they came to a bridge, when the donkey, getting one of his feet loose, kicked out and caused the boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the donkey fell over the bridge, and his forefeet being tied together, he was drowned.

Moral of the story, critics will always shout against the church, regardless of what the church does, it is a large and spacious building which allows them plenty of opinions. We would destroy our church listening to all of their attacks and attempting to accomodate them. So why bother? We know what is right.

[KevinG]

Perhaps a real-world situation would be easier to discuss...

Since the origination of the Temple ceremonies in the 1800's, there were aspects to the ceremony that some people didn't like. Let's call these people "critics", as they were dissatisfied with the ceremony, and critical of it. Some might have chosen to leave the Church, others stayed and just avoided the Temple, while others continued going to the Temple and either learned to feel better about the ceremony or just lived with their discomfort.

Then, in the late 1980's, the Church distributed a questionnaire that asked Church members about all aspects of their lives and their feelings about the Church, including the Temple. Members were free to discuss any discomfort or unease they had about the Temple. (A copy of the survey is available online. Skillful googling will lead to it if you're interested).

Then, a few years later, the Temple endowment ceremony was changed, with many parts that people had found especially disturbing changed or removed.

What role did the feedback from the survey have with these changes to the Temple? I don't know. It's possible they had a great deal of influence, it's possible the changes were communicted by God directly to President Benson having nothing to do with the survey.

But to the degree that the survey did influence the changes to the Temple ceremony, we can see a way in which the Church has changed something very core, basic and important (the endowment ceremony) in response to critics.

Who is to say whether this can happen again in the future, and which policies or practices may be affected? And who is to say how the critics will best be heard by Church leaders in a post-internet world?

If we were having this conversation in 1987 and someone suggested the Church might survey the members and then subsequently change material elements of the endowment ceremony, I suspect they would be accused of delusion bordering on insanity. Yet changes were made (and again about 10 years later), and life goes on.

What you don't know is if the survey was checking opinions or comprehension of the symbolism in the Temple. For example if symbolism for death or damnation from a 19th century agrarian society were not clearly understood by 20th century Saints that would be a good reason for adjusting the presentation of the endowment. I attended prior to the changes and after the changes. Interestingly enough the covenants, requirements and blessings remained the same.

There is a distinct difference between publicly denouncing the brethren and the church in general and privately or though priesthood channels asking for clarification or change. The first is anarchy, the second is a house of order.

[KevinG]

There is another way to have everyone in the family at the Temple sealing. It involves making covenants with God.

If someone is unable or unwilling to make those covenants it is upon them to be understanding.

[Libs]

And do you blindfold them as they walk into the sealing room past people in full temple clothing.

I was thinking about that, as well. Perhaps, there could be a special sealing room for first time sealings, on a lower floor with a special entrance? I'm sure some kind of arrangement could be made, so that non-members are not traipsing throughout the whole Temple.

[KevinG]

I was thinking about that, as well. Perhaps, there could be a special sealing room for first time sealings, on a lower floor with a special entrance? I'm sure some kind of arrangement could be made, so that non-members are not traipsing throughout the whole Temple.

The problem isn't logistics... that is easy to solve. The problem is that the ordinances are sacred, they obligate those who participate and witness them to strict covenants with God, and anyone who voluntarily participates then refuses to keep those covenants are under condemnation for disobedience.

It is the same reason I have eschewed renewing my own Temple recommend until I bring some things in my life into line with what I think I should be doing to be worthy of the priveledge of attending. Regular attendance to meetings being a key fault I need to correct.

This is not something that lends itself to a passive or neutral audience for the sake of avoiding offense to family members.

Edited February 7, 2012 by DaddyG

[Libs]

The covenants are for those being sealed, not for the audience...yes? Those in attendance are witnesses, but they are not actually making the promises.

I think that's great that you are inspired to try harder, DaddyG, in order to go to your daughter's sealing....but, what about after you no longer have that particular motivation to go to the Temple? Will you slip back into your old ways?

Sorry, but I think you should be allowed to attend your daughter's sealing, regardless.

[selek1]

The covenants are for those being sealed, not for the audience...yes? Those in attendance are witnesses, but they are not actually making the promises.

I think that's great that you are inspired to try harder, DaddyG, in order to go to your daughter's sealing....but, what about after you no longer have that particular motivation to go to the Temple? Will you slip back into your old ways?

Sorry, but I think you should be allowed to attend your daughter's sealing, regardless.

And your opinion is worth precisely what we paid for it.

THE LORD has set out the requirements for Temple attendance.

I know the Lord.

I know the Apostles.

But who are YOU that I should prefer your counsel over theirs?

[Libs]

Not that my opinion counts, at all....I do realize that. Just wishful thinking, probably.

Edit: I posted this before I saw your remarks, Selek.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Libs

[Jeff K.]

Witnesses become part of the covenant, since an understanding of the sacredness is required to be a witness.

[KevinG]

The covenants are for those being sealed, not for the audience...yes? Those in attendance are witnesses, but they are not actually making the promises.

I think that's great that you are inspired to try harder, DaddyG, in order to go to your daughter's sealing....but, what about after you no longer have that particular motivation to go to the Temple? Will you slip back into your old ways?

Sorry, but I think you should be allowed to attend your daughter's sealing, regardless.

I pray I don't slip back. I allowed myself to be offended. I'm very active now but want to be so for a period of time before I ask to renew my recommend.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. If I am not worthy to attend the Temple by my own admission and conscience why should I insist on special priveledge?

That does not mean I don't understand those who struggle to understand. As I said it took a lot of explaining and support to spare my parents unnessesary offense. I agree that LDS can handle this situation better with families but not to the point of compromising on needing a recommend, voluntarily entered into, to attend the Temple.

[selek1]

I pray I don't slip back. I allowed myself to be offended. I'm very active now but want to be so for a period of time before I ask to renew my recommend.

I believe the phenomenon you are describing is called "integrity" .

Keep up the good work.

That does not mean I don't understand those who struggle to understand. As I said it took a lot of explaining and support to spare my parents unnessesary offense. I agree that LDS can handle this situation better with families but not to the point of compromising on needing a recommend, voluntarily entered into, to attend the Temple.

And that's the crux of the matter: the demand for a special exemption to what the Lord has decreed.

Is there any other circumstance where the laws (whether eternal or carnal) are obviated by mere feelings?

How about these? Do the following examples make any more sense than the demand for exemptions to Temple requirements?

"Yes, officer- I know I was doing 135 in a school zone, but my mother-in-law is serving meatloaf and I didn't want to offend her by being late. "

"No officer, I realize that murder is against the law, but my mother-in-law really, really, really hates Pat Sajak."

"Yeah, I know- embezzling is a crime, but my father in law won't respect me unless I live in an eleven bedroom house and drive a Mercedes."

If a parent (or anyone else) stipulates that their love/approval/respect is predicated on a willingness to sacrifice your principles- then they have no love or respect for you to begin with.

Edited February 7, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

I don't think those are very good examples, Selek. Many parents who have to miss their son or daughter's sealing are not LDS. They are not breaking any covenants they've made or any laws. They just want to see their child get married.

[cinepro]

And do you blindfold them as they walk into the sealing room past people in full temple clothing.

Why wouldn't they be allowed to see people in their Temple clothing?

Part of the orientation would be to explain that the bride and groom will be wearing symbolic clothing (maybe even show a picture and give a brief explanation). It wouldn't be any more disconcerting than going into a Catholic or other Church where they wear unusual clothing.

I've been to dozens of baptisms and sacrament meetings where non-member friends and family were in attendance, and they've always sat respectfully while the ordinance was carried out, no matter how unusual it was for them to see hundreds of people pray over little pieces of bread and little cups of water and then eat them, or walk into a pool of water wearing white polyester jumpsuits, saying a prayer, and then submerging the initiate.

I suspect they would sit just as quietly and respectfully as their son or daughter was sealed in a religious ceremony to someone they loved, regardless of how they were dressed or the exact wording of the ceremony. And even if they're a little weirded out by the whole thing, such feelings aren't enough to disqualify someone from Temple attendance even if they are LDS, so it shouldn't disqualify non-LDS either.

Edited February 7, 2012 by cinepro